A Principle Explanation of the “Mysteries” of Modern Physics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the principles underlying the "mysteries" of modern physics, particularly focusing on time dilation, length contraction in special relativity, and the concept of no preferred reference frame (NPRF). Participants explore the relationships between various physical constants and their implications in both special relativity and quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the counterintuitive aspects of time dilation and length contraction can be understood through the light postulate and NPRF.
  • Others suggest a chicken-and-egg problem exists between quantum mechanics' superselection rules and the physical constants related to NPRF.
  • There are differing views on whether the partition that provides the correct equivalence relation or the equivalence relation itself comes first.
  • One participant proposes a hierarchy of explanations linking NPRF to time dilation, length contraction, and relativity of simultaneity.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of recognizing that relativity of simultaneity partitions spacetime into three invariant regions, challenging the notion of it being a two-region partition.
  • Discussions also touch on the implications of Bell state correlations and how they relate to NPRF and the partitioning of information.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the relationships between NPRF, time dilation, and the equivalence relations in both special relativity and quantum mechanics. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on the foundational aspects of these principles.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the discussion involves assumptions about the definitions of partitions and equivalence relations, which may not be universally accepted. There are also unresolved mathematical steps related to the implications of different partitions in quantum mechanics.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying modern physics, particularly in the areas of relativity and quantum mechanics, as well as individuals exploring the foundational principles of these theories.

  • #121
David Spector said:
I am certainly happy that you are content to find an explanation of QM that satisfies you. However, gently, I will point out to you that in this lengthy discussion you have not been able to present a clear explanation of how allowing h to be variable solves any problem in understanding QM, ... If physics is going to really explain how Nature works, it must be clear and understandable, not just the "hit-and-run" game of stating a nonobvious principle and then running away. If you are playing a game with me, Ruta, I do not like it much.
The relativity principle applied to the measurement of the speed of light c constitute the postulates of SR. As of now, 116 years after the publication of SR, we have nothing else to explain time dilation, length contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity. The relativity principle is not considered "nonobvious" in physics. On the contrary, it has been widely accepted since Galileo. What we showed in our publications (reviewed in this Insight) is that you can recover all of denumerable-dimensional QM with the very same relativity principle applied to the measurement of another fundamental constant of Nature, Planck's constant h. If you believe this principle account of QM lacks explanatory value, then you must also believe the postulates of SR lack explanatory value. You wouldn't be alone in that belief, but the vast majority of physicists disagree and all introductory physics textbooks introduce SR via its postulates.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
We are getting nowhere. I certainly agree with the standard derivation of SR from the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum. Please give me a reference for what you are talking about so I can educate myself, since obviously you refuse to discuss Bohmian Mechanics.
 
  • #123
David Spector said:
We are getting nowhere. I certainly agree with the standard derivation of SR from the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum. Please give me a reference for what you are talking about so I can educate myself, since obviously you refuse to discuss Bohmian Mechanics.
My Insight has nothing to do with the dBB interpretation nor have I ever published anything to do with dBB, so I don't know why you expected me to engage in a discussion of dBB. If you want to see how the relativity principle + h underwrites QM just as the relativity principle + c underwrites SR, see https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.12043 written for physics educators. It references our relevant publications if you're interested.
 
  • #124
David Spector said:
We are getting nowhere. I certainly agree with the standard derivation of SR from the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum. Please give me a reference for what you are talking about so I can educate myself, since obviously you refuse to discuss Bohmian Mechanics.
This article https://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.02089.pdf was just posted on another thread I've been following. You might be interested in reading Section 5.1 "De Broglie-Bohm theory"
 
  • #125
RUTA said:
All this is covered in our book, as you'll see. Chapters 7 & 8 cover the reconciliation of our dynamical experience of time with adynamical or block universe physics.
What is the name of the book again RUTA?

EDIT: Is this it - 'Beyond the Dynamical Universe: Unifying Block Universe Physics and Time as Experienced'?
 
Last edited:
  • #126
Lynch101 said:
What is the name of the book again RUTA?

EDIT: Is this it - 'Beyond the Dynamical Universe: Unifying Block Universe Physics and Time as Experienced'?
Yes that’s it
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lynch101
  • #127
I've been reading Part 3 of the book and it is very interesting indeed. I would love to explore the ideas further and check to make sure I have understood them. Is this thread the right place for that discussion, or would it be advisable to start a new one?
 
  • #128
Lynch101 said:
I've been reading Part 3 of the book and it is very interesting indeed. I would love to explore the ideas further and check to make sure I have understood them. Is this thread the right place for that discussion, or would it be advisable to start a new one?
In a private conversation is best :-)
 
  • #129
Ch 4 fig 4.20 re K. I want to get this question down because it seems clear re that diagram.

In RBW where “all contextual levels” interact… I buy the “boundary of a boundary is zero” math but I am struggling to imagine a single boundary that is really zero (an experiment with any real “spacetime source elements”) given the second law. You can artificially create one but only at the expense of displacing crucial entropy increasing interaction to some other level or boundary.
So for any real spacetime source element that boundary has be drawn such that entropy doesn’t cancel.

What I mean, is… isn’t that a cube with a temperature or entropy equivalent to “1 bit” or something like that. If it is real doesn’t it have to a spacetime “cost” vis a vis the AGC.
 
Last edited:
  • #130
Jimster41 said:
Ch 4 fig 4.20 re K. I want to get this question down because it seems clear re that diagram.

In RBW where “all contextual levels” interact… I buy the “boundary of a boundary is zero” math but I am struggling to imagine a single boundary that is really zero (an experiment with any real “spacetime source elements”) given the second law. You can artificially create one but only at the expense of displacing crucial entropy increasing interaction to some other level or boundary.
So for any real spacetime source element that boundary has be drawn such that entropy doesn’t cancel.

What I mean, is… isn’t that a cube with a temperature or entropy equivalent to “1 bit” or something like that. If it is real doesn’t it have to a spacetime “cost” vis a vis the AGC.
I don’t think of a spacetimesource element as “real”. It just represents the relational nature of quantum exchanges of energy-momentum.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jimster41
  • #131
RUTA said:
I don’t think of a spacetimesource element as “real”. It just represents the relational nature of quantum exchanges of energy-momentum.
I got excited by all the talk about ontological contextual emergence. Re-reading clarified that you consider spacetime source elements as psi-epistemic and what is real are classical events. Is that correct? I also saw a line where you seemed to leave open that what is considered a “classical event” might be over-constrained. I will have to look for that quote.
(One lame thing about an e-book is you can’t mark up the margins etc. I would have marked that one)

I am still confused about how an entity can be psi-epistemic and ontological but maybe I finally start to understand the nuance of those terms.

and I am still curious where the Second Law fits in, if at all I guess, in the fundamental relational exchanges and the relative realism of the diachronic experience.

It also occurred to me while reading the chapter on emergence that non-linearity is a big feature of emergent phenomena (at least what I have read about them). And non-linear math is… not an easy or particularly useful place to start building the idea of math. So it’s not surprising human beings started with smooth differential manifolds, symmetry rules etc.
 
  • #132
Jimster41 said:
I got excited by all the talk about ontological contextual emergence. Re-reading clarified that you consider spacetime source elements as psi-epistemic and what is real are classical events. Is that correct? I also saw a line where you seemed to leave open that what is considered a “classical event” might be over-constrained. I will have to look for that quote.
(One lame thing about an e-book is you can’t mark up the margins etc. I would have marked that one)

I am still confused about how an entity can be psi-epistemic and ontological but maybe I finally start to understand the nuance of those terms.

and I am still curious where the Second Law fits in, if at all I guess, in the fundamental relational exchanges and the relative realism of the diachronic experience.

It also occurred to me while reading the chapter on emergence that non-linearity is a big feature of emergent phenomena (at least what I have read about them). And non-linear math is… not an easy or particularly useful place to start building the idea of math. So it’s not surprising human beings started with smooth differential manifolds, symmetry rules etc.
See Section 3.2.1 of this paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/5/551/htm for the role of Newton's 2nd law. That's not in the book.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jimster41

Similar threads

High School Speed of Light in Free Space - Einstein's Second Principle
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Undergrad Understanding Einstein's second postulate of special relativity
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
Graduate Is the constancy of c a postulate or a derivable theorem?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
981
Undergrad What if one is in 1905 and debating foundational fundamentals?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Undergrad Speed of light one more time
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Undergrad The Einstein Clock aka Light Clock
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
High School What if we use a non physical reference point to measure an object's mass?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Undergrad SR flat Lorentzian manifold and Anderson simultaneity convention
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
High School Second Postulate of Special Relativity Explained
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
High School Implications of negative Michelson-Morley result
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K